Leading article: The right way to fight terror
Thursday, 11 September 2008
Three terrorists – Abdulla Ahmed Ali, Tanvir Hussain and Assad Sarwar – were convicted in a British court this week of a plot to kill innocent civilians. They were apprehended by the authorities in 2006 before they could put their murderous intentions into action. One might expect the intelligence services and the police to treat such an outcome as a success.
Yet the reaction of the security services this week has been one of disappointment that the police did not prove their full case against the men: that they were involved in a conspiracy to blow up passenger jets above the Atlantic. The recriminations have flown. Some are blaming the American authorities for forcing their British counterparts to move before they had all the evidence in place. Others argue that the police misjudged the quality of the evidence against the men. It has been further suggested that the prosecutors did not present the case well enough.
Yet there is a dangerous assumption behind this furore: namely that the jury somehow came to the wrong decision. The jury system is the foundation stone of our liberties; our bulwark against arbitrary arrest and imprisonment. We cannot have people locked up merely on the grounds that the state believes they are guilty. Independent adjudicators of the evidence and the prosecution case are needed. In this case, the jury felt that the evidence did not support the entire police case. Unless it can be shown that these men and women they were misdirected, or corrupted, we must accept their verdict.
There is another, related, danger. It is easy to foresee circumstances in which this outcome could embolden our politicians to go down the path of disregarding civil liberties, detaining suspected terrorists without trial on the grounds that our criminal justice system has proved unable to cope with the threat of jihadist terror groups. Peter Clarke, the policeman who led the investigation, has already held the case up as a justification for Britain's pernicious "surveillance society", as if it somehow bolstered the case for ID cards and phone tapping by local councils.
The terror threat from disaffected young Britons is real and serious. But the way to meet that threat is through the existing criminal justice system. This week's trial result ought to be regarded as a vindication, not a condemnation, of that approach.
-
Print Article
-
Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2008 Independent News and Media Limited
If the definition of terrorism is coerce people into actions or behavior they otherwise would not indulge in because of threats of violence, then, I would say, that the governments of the western world are far greater terrorists than Bin Laden and his ilk. Remember that with surveillance cameras everywhere, the authorities treat everyone as a potential terrorist.
Juries are there to ensure there is no abuse of power by the police or government, and - which is probably more important than any individual - strike down laws that they deem unjust.
Complaining about the outcome of a case that does not satisfy the authorities is a sport that they regularly indulge in. We should continue to treat such complaints with the contempt they deserve.
Remember always that jury trial is the last bastion of freedom,
Posted by Alan James | 12.09.08, 08:32 GMT
It is extremely difficult to fight terror by legitimate means. Please remember the adage The only good terrorist is a dead terror terrorist. We just cannot have only a benign approach towards terrorism. If some human rights violations occur during the course of the fight they should be ignored. I am saying this from the experience in the eighties when India fought terrorism in Punjab. Now that State is largely peaceful and progressing at a fast rate. India has been and still is a victim of terrorism and because of the benign approach of the Government we continue to suffer.
Posted by Ashok Mehta | 11.09.08, 14:08 GMT
This judgement could not have succeeded across the pond. It would have be politicised and treated as a show trial, something to hang their use of torture on.
If we start sellig out our legal processes for want of better evidence it is us who will lose.
Posted by John Annis | 11.09.08, 11:22 GMT
You may be right, but there is a difference. A normal criminal intends to hurt only an individual or two, the terrorist wants to kill as many as possible and he has no personal grudge against them. Just picking innocent men, women and children, because of his hate for a faith or policies of the government, for for which those targets have nothing to do.
For extra meat you need more stricter rules. Anybody from that community who criticizes the methods is a suspect. Those who are liberals have a more human view point.
Posted by sharifL | 11.09.08, 09:54 GMT